Pages

10.10.2006

I always try to skim all the new legal "advance sheets" (new case law) to see if there is anything new in the criminal law arena. I was doing so this morning and came across a Texas Supreme Court civil case involving a Kroger employee who sued Kroger. It amazed me so much I had to go online and print out the above for you. (Click to enlarge).
Maybe a Republican judiciary is a good thing.

1:52 You have one major flaw in your dismay. You are applying the logic of a prudent and reasonable human being to your analysis of the case.

The justice system has nothing to do with that thought process.

The justice system has to do with a group of people called lawyers who either try to extort money or protect those from whom the money is being extorted. They freely play either role - extorter or extortee. In the end alot of dust has been thrown into the air and alot of money has passed into the greedy hands of lawyers -- that is our justice system - get over it.

I prefer the South American version of the same thing where the bribery is straightforward, out-in-the-open and expected. At least in that scenario you realize what you are up against.

A poorly directed lawsuit. In this instance, the employer was not the entity that should have been sued. Instead, the State of Nevada is at fault. Why? Well, Nevada hosted the testing of the H bomb, which led to the bombing of Japan, which in turn led to the need for the U.S. government to rebuild Japan's economy, which resulted in Japanese autos that hurt your hand if you stick it between the frame and door. DUH! In fact, I think the descendants of Cochise should be sued for failing to prevent the white man from taking Arizona in the first place.

Everybody is so quick to bash all lawyers, when everybody seems to forget that 12 people on a jury ruled in that guy's favor. I think the lawsuit sounds stupid, too, but come on, if you want to blame, blame the jury. That's the way the system works.

4:08, not really. Jurors and trials follow procedures. And legal rules. All established by the legal system. Jurors can't just fire off questions that they would like answers to. Jurors may here something they think is important and then be told to "disregard" and that what they heard could not be used, even if on the basis of some technicality. And, jurors themselves are selected, it's not a random thing. So you get juries that are tailored one way or the other. Finally, judges can overturn a jury's verdict in many places. Not the juror's fault, mind you...but my point is basically that the jurors aren't really in control or making the decisions, even thought we think so. And if they are making decisions, it's sort of like a little kid that gets to "make a decision" on what to ride at Six Flags...but only after his parents restrict him to the kiddie land. Not really a free decision.

4:08 could not be any MORE wrong. The juries hands are tied; they only get to hear what a lawyer allows them to hear. They can ask no questions. They have no idea how many facts are being held from them based on a litany of "pretrial motions".

Lawyers are by definition decievers. They are professional liars.

The highest paid among them are simply those that have mastered the art of misdirection and manipulation. I can only hope I am someday pulled into a voire dire proceeding. I will take great satisfaction in proclaiming all of them to be total assholes.